Late Sh. Sulekh Chand Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Background
- Assessee had always been assessed at Delhi jurisdiction.
- Reopening reasons (14.12.2021) were recorded by ITO, Ward-2, Rohtak based on Investigation Wing inputs.
- AO alleged assessee failed to disclose LTCG of ₹3.38 Cr. in ITR.
- Assessee argued reopening was void since Rohtak AO had no territorial jurisdiction; relied on Col. Paramjit Singh v. CIT (220 ITR 446, P&H) & Dushyant Kumar Jain v. DCIT (381 ITR 428, Del).
- CIT(A)-NFAC upheld reopening, stating faceless regime makes territorial jurisdiction irrelevant.
Tribunal’s Observations/ Decision
- Revenue itself did not dispute assessee’s assessment jurisdiction was always with Delhi AO.
- Once Rohtak AO recorded reopening reasons without jurisdiction, entire proceedings became invalid.
- Such a defect is not curable u/s 292BB.
- Precedents (Col. Paramjit Singh & Dushyant Kumar Jain) directly applied, favouring assessee.
- ITAT quashed reassessment as void ab initio.
- Other grounds on merits rendered academic.
- Appeal allowed in full.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 arises against National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi’s’ order dated 11.02.2025 [DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073141126(1)] in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Paid content
Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.
